Sequel-itis

This Hollywood Reporter article talks about the growing prevalence of sequels.

Dean Takahashi, who covers the games industry for the San Jose Mercury News, said, "Gamers tend to gravitate to whatever they know. If you try to sell them something else, you're asking them to spend $50 and invest dozens of hours of play on something they know nothing about. That's a real hard sell. And that's the main reason publishers do sequels; to insure that their games will stand out."

To counter Takahashi's claim, I firmly believe that gamers are always on the look out for something new, original and innovative. And the reason why sequels are generally successful is because the first game(s) in the series were original and innovative, and so gamers keep looking to these game brands to deliver greatness again. Generally, though, sequels deliver more of the same, which isn't necessarily bad, but sequels are a poor place to look for further innovation and uniqueness.

The key to what I'm saying is that most gamers want to experience something new. And the rare game that gives them something new will usually succeed wildly, like Everquest (well-executed 3D persistent world), Max Payne (slow motion gameplay), The Sims (social fulfillment), GTA3 ("possibility space" gameplay), Call of Duty (the real feeling of squad-based war), Half-Life (seamless story enhanced by scripted memorable moments) and Roller Coaster Tycoon (simple and fun construction).

The real issue is that publishers, for the most part, do not know how to make successful new games with any degree of confidence. And so they over-rely on sequels and licenses. And as an industry we look more and more creatively bankrupt. But, let's not get side-tracked on another topic.

"Another strong motivator is the gaming enthusiast magazines' tendency to save their covers for sequels, minimizing the exposure originals receive on newsstands," said Paul Hyman, author of this article.

We encountered this with the first Duke Nukem 3D, even though all of the editors told us they thought the game was great when we previewed it to them. The game eventually did get a ton of covers because the shareware version came out in Jan. 1996 and caused such a huge stir that magazines were practically forced to give the game covers for when the full version came out May that year.

However, with Max Payne, an entirely original game with no license attached to it, we were able to get dozens of covers worldwide by using several methods of buzz-building, which I'll save for another blog. True Crimes also got many covers, so it IS in fact possible for original games to get their due in the press.

Doug Lowenstein, president of the Entertainment Software Assn., offers his thoughts: "There's no question that sequels are a very important part of the market," he said. "But just because it says 'Game 2' on the box doesn't mean what's inside is the same game as 'Game 1' but with a different script. A movie sequel usually tries to preserve the same basic elements that made the movie successful the first time. But, in a game sequel, because of AI changes, technical developments, and such, you can create a dramatically different game experience from the last time around."

Games are no better or worse than movies in this respect. Any sequel can be somewhat original within the context of its established gameworld if given the proper attention during design. But, again, the originality that caused the original game in a series to go from nothing to stardom is usually a one-time shot. Doesn't mean sequels cannot be great experiences, just means that it's hard to stray from the successful elements that warrant making a sequel in the first place.

At 3D Realms, we think of our story-driven approach as not creating sequels, but instead episodes. Each episode, like those of a TV series, shows a new chapter in the life of the key character(s). This was the approach taken with the follow-up to Max Payne. It's also the approach we're taking with each new Duke Nukem game. Sure, the tech is always being improved, but only so that we can tell a better story and give the player a better experience. But, in the grand scheme, we do not see Duke Nukem Forever as a sequel -- it's merely the next chapter in Duke Nukem's ongoing adventures. Semantics, sure. But that's our internal mindset.

In this way we do not look at sequels as rehashes, but as continuations. We hope that the stories we're building into our games are enthralling enough on their own to make the game seem like a fairly original experience, even if the gameplay is still similar (but we try to improve in this area, too).

My bottom-line is that I do not have a problem with sequels, as long as they continue to push forward in terms of gameplay, technology, and story. It's hard for sequels to make the revolutionary jump they likely made with their original appearance, but it shouldn't be too hard to make an evolutionary improvement with each new chapter in the series.

The real issue is the industry's fear of making new, original games, and thus relying too much on sequels, including games that didn't deserve to see a sequel, and we can all name a few of those! I haven't studied this at all, but without looking at the box-office charts I'm betting that the average top 10 movie list has far fewer sequels in it than the game industry has. So, somehow in their grand system, the movie industry is demonstrating more willingness to be creative and original than the game industry.

Let's hope it's not always this way.

Comments

[Matt Hilliard]

The movie industry makes sequels for the same reason the games industry does: they are a little more reliable in terms of ROI. However, the movie industry has less sequels because (a) with the exception of five or six big franchises consumer loyalty is tied to actors/actresses and directors at least as much if not more than stories. (b) AAA-level games generally take at minimum two years to go from game design to gold master while movies take generally a year at most to go from script to being in the can...thus a game percentage-wise ties up more resources and thus is a much bigger risk. (c) While the movie industry, like the games industry, frequently spends too much on its high profile products for them to be profitable, there is a lot more competition at the low end. Low budget movies are big hits ten times as often, at least, as low budget games. (d) Finally in the movie industry most of the risk is assumed by the studio that is funding it, a massive entity, leaving most of the people making the film insulated from the fallout if it is a bomb while in the games industry most of the risk falls on the developer, who generally is not even funding the game themselves. A single failed game can be enough to bankrupt the developer in many cases.

All these things make the games industry necessarily more risk averse and gives it fewer options toward safeguarding its investment.

[Nathan McKenzie]

Sequels are a funny thing in gaming.

I tried making a list once of games I consider personally noteworthy (I'm not good at saying something is my favorite, so this was about as close as I get), and the overwhelming majority of them were sequels. And many of them were considerably better than their original source.

Super Mario 3, Mario 64, Final Fantasy 4 and 6, Super Metroid, Metroid Prime, Grand Theft Auto 3, Zelda 3, Zelda 64, the GBA Zeldas, Diablo 2, Warcraft 2, NHL 93, Street Fighter 2, Doom 2, Castlevania: Symphyony of the Night (and Aria of Sorrow and Dracula X on the TurboDuo), Megaman 2, Heroes of Might and Magic 3, Suikoden 2, Virtua Fighter 2, Contra 3, Tie Fighter... I am capable of making this list very, very, _VERY_ long :)

If I were to list movies I find noteworthy, on the other hand, I'm not sure if there would be any sequels at all(well, with the exception of one or two trilogies).

It's true that there are a lot of completely uninspired sequels in gaming, but I don't think the sequelness is the primary reason for a lack of inspiration or quality. Many of the sequels I listed above have more originality in them than the overwhelming majority of non-sequel-non-license games, I think.

Games sequels to movie sequels is apples to oranges - people love to deride game sequels as proof that there is no more creativity in gaming, but that doesn't seem to mesh with my own experience at all.

[Jeffool]

I'll agree with Nathan there in that gaming sequels are a chance to fine-tune and tweak the original, as it's usually the gameplay that keeps us coming back, as opposed to the content. Of course there are many 'out-of-the-blue' gameplay successes, but still. I'll stick by that general idea. Of course a great game would get better in gameplay AND content as it went on... We as gamers are often fine with mediocre stories as the gameplay is (debately to some, I'd guess) the meat of games.

I forget who said it, but a short while back I read someone saying that they didn't care if game graphics ever got better. 3D was enough. From here on out it's all about gameplay over graphics. Obviously not everyone agrees, but it makes you wonder about the importance of graphics, story, and gameplay. Sequels have to take the same forumla from the previous one and improve in these areas. (Or change enough and still be recognized as good.)

[Jeff Mackintosh]

"a) with the exception of five or six big franchises consumer loyalty is tied to actors/actresses and directors at least as much if not more than stories."
-----
Considering most sequels involve the same actors (I'd be stunned if you could name ten movie sequels that did not involve the principle actors from the preceeding movie), this is a non-issue.

"(b) AAA-level games generally take at minimum two years to go from game design to gold master while movies take generally a year at most to go from script to being in the can...thus a game percentage-wise ties up more resources and thus is a much bigger risk."
-----
What??? You might want to check your work timeframes for movies again. Exceedingly few movies take "a year at most to go from script to being in the can." It takes significantly longer than that for most mainstream movie releases. Maybe made-for-TV movies can be churned out in that sort of timeframe but I don't think that's what people are talking about when they mention movies...

"(c) While the movie industry, like the games industry, frequently spends too much on its high profile products for them to be profitable, there is a lot more competition at the low end. Low budget movies are big hits ten times as often, at least, as low budget games."
-----
Can you site a source for that claim? I find it highly dubious but, if there is a source that can back it, I can certainly be convinced that I'm wrong.

[steve]

The press is just as desperate to cover something new as gamers are to play original games, and it falls back on sequels for the same reasons publishers do, safe return on investment. If you have GREAT NEW GAME on your cover and your competitor has GREAT GAME II on theirs, they win. People want to read about the next Grand Theft Auto more than the "next big thing" they've never heard of. Unless they can be convinced that this "next big thing" really is the "next big thing."

It's not hard to build up hype, to manage the release of information to build things up to the point that people are dying for more information. The key is managing information, and most companies do an awful, awful job at this. They release too much information too soon.

Sometimes it's what you don't say that gets people excited. Not that 3D Realms would know anything about this...

[Brian S.]

I will post a more comprehensive view on the whole sequels/license v. originality later (see Spector/Costikyan et al), but there are two significant aspects that differentiates Hollywood from the video game industry in regards to perceived originality. Whereas, Hollywood movies benefit greatly from the concepts and practices of actor cross-fertilization and buddy-teaming, video games by and large do not and cannot. These two factors are crucial in why Hollywood supports and underwrites new, edgy and low-budget projects that otherwise do not conform to typical blockbuster fare.

Actor cross-fertilization means that actors and actresses have the power and capability to buttress novel and risky projects by the mere fact that their participation lends credibility and support to the film. Once an actor gains clout either through critical or box-office acclaim, his stardom travels with him, lending credence to whatever project he next supports. The greater the celebrity a film snags, the grander the spotlight it enjoys. This is because we follow the individual actor; not the movie or role per se he has played previously. A movie like “The Last Samurai” probably would not have earned a twentieth it has made to date ($108+ million domestically) or even been greenlighted if Tom Cruise (“Top Gun” et al) had not been involved.

The impact of actor cross-fertilization in the low-budget (aka "independent") and atypical productions is even more greatly magnified. Because actors in these projects usually reduce their up-front fees in exchange for a higher backend gross participation, it allows these films to be made within budget while not compromising their creativity or edginess. Actors get a chance to step out from their blockbuster typecast and become critically recognized while delivering to their studios a bankable brand. A movie like “Lost in Translation” would probably not have gotten the recognition (an Academy Award nomination) or the box-office revenue ($42+ million domestically) if it had not been for the participation of Bill Murray (also nominated for Best Actor).

There is no parallel actor cross-fertilization concept in video games. While it is true that recognized game developers like Chris Roberts or Will Wright gain a following, it is often not transferable to other projects where they do not have expertise in the genre. Richard Garriott, “aka Lord British,” would have little credibility if he decided to work on a sports simulation game for his next project. Most game players hardly recognize who developed which game under which publisher, with the exception of brands like Disney and LucasArts, which came before video gaming. With the state of the industry as it is, most gamers do not care anyway which developer rises or falls tomorrow.

For gaming characters that are established like Mario, Sonic, and Lara Croft, because they are tied to existing companies, it is doubtful they would be cross-licensed to support a competitor. Although voice-over talent is interchangeable it is not the greenlight consideration. Even real actors do not help anymore, with the flame-out of FMV games like the Wing Commander series (circa early-to-mid-1990s).

Buddy-teaming is the practice of pairing a relatively new, preferably young, actor with an established, bankable actor in the hopes of having some of the celebrity’s stardom rub off onto the new guy. Once the new guy has a few film credits under his belt, then he can headline a picture without support. If the buddy-team picture is a success and the audience takes a liking to him, this process can be expedited. The process is ideal in the way it encourages studios and directors to recruit new talent and develop future stars. The movie “Wall Street,” which starred Michael Douglas gave the young Charlie Sheen his coming out party as an actor, with an assist from his father, Martin Sheen, with American audiences. It vaulted him to the top of the acting world by the mid-1990s with movies such as “Major League,” “Men at Work,” ”Hot Shots,” and “Mission to Mars.” Today he is as well known as any celebrity.

It is hard to conceive of how buddy-teaming can work in most video games if you exclude games where character specifics are immaterial, like strategy and simulation games, and licensed properties with known characters like Star Wars. Here I am focusing on game-developed characters. Because the gaming experience is singular and personal, it is hard to envision a scenario where character buddy-teaming works well. Most game players want to be the hero and not the sidekick character. And most games are constructed with this in mind. We want to be Mario, not Luigi. Batman, not Robin. And when games do not conform and insist we play the lesser character, we revolt as evidenced in the outcry over being hoodwinked into playing Raiden instead of Solid Snake in MSG2. There seems to be no satisfactory way to introduce a new character when it paired up with a superior, known character because they are often not translatable across games. And that prevents new characters from coming into their own and expanding the playable universe. I am not saying it never works because the main characters in Final Fantasy X-2 successfully transitioned from being secondary characters in Final Fantasy X. However, SquareEnix has a deep reservoir of fan allegiance on its side to work with.

Most independent and low-budget game developers are doubly bound by the two factors I outlined above. Not only are they constrained by limited resources and tools, but they cannot even sniff at either recruiting top developers or get access to known game character properties, unless they give up project control. Moreover, most workers will not and cannot afford to discount their salary in exchange for back-end participation (like that is ever going to happen). Therefore, it is almost impossible for indies to create AAA quality titles in the same fashion that independent movie producers regularly do. There are few incentives to take outsized risks in creative design, gameplay, or storytelling. That is why the video game industry is still the ugly stepsister of media with sales dominated by sequels and licenses and originality being few are far between.

[Scott Miller]

Brian, would you believe that there is no relationship between a star's celebrity status and a movie's success?

If you look at the credits of most stars, they have as many hits as flops. Look at Gigli, for example, a movie starring one of our current hottest actors, Ben, along with another hot actress, who's also one of the music industry's biggest star, Jen. Here we have two of the biggest stars going, paired together, yet the movie absolutely flopped.

I've actually researched the correlation between stars and their movies' success, and there simply exists none. I've also talked to this to people in Hollywood, and many agree -- the ones whom have also researched this fact.

However, even though stars are a non-factor to a movie's success, Hollywood has self-created a star system in which stars have tons of power, including the power to green-light pet projects. Producers know that by having a star attached to a project, that the project will then attract a good director, as well as studio financing.

So, it's true that stars are important to Hollywood under the present system. But it's not true that stars matter to a movie's success. Where their bank-able stars in Star Wars, or E.T.? Would Titanic have done much worse without the star power of Leonardo DiCaprio? Who was the big star of Jurassic Park? Or Lord of the Rings? Or Independence Day? I'm naming several of the all-time top box office movies, and there's not a star in sight that mattered to the success of these movies.

Here's a fact that is very, very, very difficult for many people to understand, but research backs it up without question: Stars do not make movies. Movies make stars.

Note: In some cases, stars do matter, like with Woody Allen movies in which Woody has a loyal following, but really it's not for Woody, but his brand of movie. Also, a handful of truly great actors can make a difference at the box-office, like Jack Nicholson, because people love to see them do their craft at such a high level.

Also, people may point at people like Adam Sandler as proof tha tstars matter, with his string of successes, but I say it's only because he's smartly picked good movies to be in. Jim Carry is an even greatly comedian, but even he can't rescue a bad movie, like The Majestic.

[JP]

Nice observations, Brian S. I think the only things I could add to this are along the lines of what Nathan said: movie sequels and game sequels are an apples to kumquats comparison. There has never been, to my knowledge, a movie sequel that tells the exact same story as its prequel - or a story so similar as to be a "re-imagining", like what id is supposedly doing with Doom 3 - yet this is a common practice in games. This seems to suggest that story is not what people are paying for when they pick up a sequel game... they want improvements in graphics and possibly gameplay. I'm sure this figures into Scott & Co's thinking in selling "character-driven" games, and indeed you could look at the character as being the enabler of a certain type of gameplay - I play Mario when I want to crush mushrooms with my ass, because only he can do it and not Lara Croft or Pac-Man. There might be a sort of perceptual chicken-egg conundrum there, though, depending largely on whether the developer approaches marketing / franchise-able character creation first (Max Payne, whatever) or the core gameplay first (Metroid? Mario, Zelda, etc... those more traditional designs are defined by what you *do*).

The success of this evolutionary model might stem from the idea that people basically want to play an old favorite game over again, only reincarnated in some newer and fancier form. Problems with older games in the series must be fixed, the graphics and overall presentation should be more impressive, and if new complexities are introduced in gameplay they must build upon previous efforts or rework them minimally. I say that not to disparage the process, because like Nathan I'm finding a lot of my favorite games are sequels and a lot of times this evolution yields something that is truly a better product in every way - it's hard to go back to Doom when you've got Doom 2, etc (though I'm sure it's highly debatable per-case). A sequel is sometimes really just Original Game v1.5... a chance for the developers to fix and embellish. The only bad thing about this is if player really did end up paying for a sub-par first game that is made obsolete by its successor... they should have been allowed to finish the first game as I have a hunch the economics of doing so make more sense.

Creatively, I think sequels and the evolutionary, incremental advancement model they epitomize are just fine, and a sign of a healthy medium that is building upon its successes. However, it's equally necessary to be out there searching for a new crazy thing that nobody understands yet. 99 of those will be financial misses but the 100th will be your next big franchise (or just a successful one-off). The same conservative thinking that brings us quality sequels also makes us reticent to create new franchises, and I'd love to see that change.

[Doug P.]

I think it's difficult to make a 1:1 comparison of movies to games to see which industry is demonstrating a greater willingness to be creative and original by looking over the "top 10" lists. Take a look at the IMDB archive of the Top 10 box office movies and look through the titles - http://www.imdb.com/Charts/usboxarchive.

While there are certainly a lot less sequels in movies than there are games, I think something about the movie industry is being overlooked. As I scanned the movie titles, I notice that a lot of them are "based on a true story", are remakes of classics, or are based on a book, comic, or TV series. The game industry doesn't draw as much material from these same sources. On the contrary, it seems games create content for other mediums more often than not. Many worlds created in games are now being expanded upon through books, comics, and movies (although this is more of a two-way street than the other two).

So, I don't think it's necessarily true that the movie industry is being more creative or more original than games at all.

[Greg Findlay]

I'd tend to disagree with you Brian. A good example of both cross fertilization and buddy-teaming is Blizzard. Blizzard has made successful games in several genres, sometimes using the same game world. World of WarCraft is a perfect example of cross fertilization. It takes a known game world by a well known company and brings it too a new genre.

And Pokemon is another good example.

For buddy teaming, take the StarCraft series. Blizzard is lending it's IP, and clout to Nihilistic while they create StarCraft Ghost.

There are multiple other examples of these things happening.

Also, I'm not sure why your trying to use game characters as an example for buddy teaming. Actors can switch to a different role in a different movie but the characters they play need to stay in that world or it won't make sense. Same with game characters.

[Nathan McKenzie]

Mario Kart is probably my favorite racing game of all time. When I first saw a picture of it in a game magazine at the time, I thought Nintendo was absolutely shameless. What does Mario have to do with racing, thought I? And then they more or less invented the cartoony kart racing genre. And then it went on to be Nintendo's best selling SNES game in Japan of all time (according to magic box, anyway - 3.82 million copies).

Mario RPG->Paper Mario->Mario+Luigi Super Star Saga are also a non-too-shabby pedigree.

And even the Mario Party series is pretty noteworthy - I don't remember ever seeing the "party game" genre prior to it, although I might be wrong.

Hell, even WarioWare, which I think is the most innovative, original game I've seen in several years, is a tendril of the Mario franchise.

Is this cross-pollination in the sense we're talking about here?

...

You know, now that I'm looking at it, the Mario world or franchise has been attached to a surpriring number of genre creations.

All of this does lend very strong credence to Scott's approach of focusing on strong characters, really. By making the Mario stuff so identifiable, Nintendo is ironically much _freer_ to innovate, because they have an appealing (well, to some), trusted world that they can set any given activity in. Not to say that Nintendo is faultless, of course, or to suggest that this strategy is still working now that development is taking wildly longer and everything is costing so much more and so on and so forth. And I think the idea only works so long as your new experiments are consistently as high quality as the original properties (but that applies to sequels generally anyway).

Hmm...

[Scott Miller]

-- "focusing on strong characters"

Nathan, I've been saying for years that properties that are based on characters are generally more flexible than those based on events (WW2) or situations (hells breaks thru a portal).

We first learned this by studying comic books in the early 90's. By focusing on the key character, like Batman or Spider-Man, you can put that character in endless situations and events -- in endless stories.

I've always said that naming Lara Croft's game "Tomb Raider" was a tactical branding blunder. This title only makes sense when there's tomb raiding involved. So, it forces each "Tomb Raider" game to take place in a tomb, whether it fits the story's needs or is forced. I would have instead come up with a better character name (Lara Croft is very weak), and named the game after the character, Duke Nukem-style, or Max Payne-style. That way this character could appear in any number of story types, without as much limitation.

So far, I'm glad that most devs and pubs haven't caught onto this, because it starts to look silly when too many games are named after their starring characters -- so it's better than most of the market does it the way they've been doing it: Beyond Good and Evil -- now that's what I love to see from the competition!

[JP]

"And I think the idea only works so long as your new experiments are consistently as high quality as the original properties"

This is key. Nintendo has the Mario IP to put on a box and get people paying attention, but they have to follow that up with a quality game (doubly hard when they attempt to extend the Mario brand into a new genre, as they so often have) otherwise it's a double loss... if the game sucks it not only sells poorly but people lose respect for the Mario brand as a whole. True story: I was in an EB yesterday, and overheard two kids talking while browsing through the bargain bin (PSX and Dreamcast games mostly). One of them said "Oh, Duke Nukem that's a good game". The other kid proceeded to explain that the Playstation spin-off Duke game he was looking at wasn't as good, it wasn't the older PC game. It surprised the hell out of me because the kids looked young enough that they couldn't have been but 4 or 5 years old when Duke 3D came out... I guess they'd played it in more recent years. Anyway, anecdotal evidence that a consumer was actively turned off a game by recognizing that not all entries in a franchise are of quality. Good indication that if you want to build a franchise you should put all of your resources behind it so quality doesn't suffer in the spin-off / differently genre'd titles. This is something Nintendo has a pretty darn good record with.

[JP]

And yeah, it is comforting when a strong franchise acts as a sort of "safety net" that allows you to try new things rather than just making you more and more afraid to do so. That was one of the points Warren Spector made in his GDC address last year, the one that sparked the public exchange between him and Greg Costikyan about licensed games / sequels VS original games. It's definitely a complex issue with pros and cons on either side. Sometimes you get a Paper Mario out of it, sometimes you get an obvious milk-job like Tomb Raider 3.

[Brian S.]

Scott, I am not saying nor am I implying that a movie's sole success or failure can be attributed to the acting stars it gets. However, it can be said without such stars as in my examples I listed among others the movies would not have sniffed the American consciousness. In certain genres like sci-fi and fantasy, the name actors matter less, while in others like comedies and dramas, they matter more. I do not dispute that actors can be in bad projects, but I am also sure that said actors can also rescue bad scripts to a decent box office. Most of the movies you listed drew audiences because of their special effects because it is hard to see that there was a "great" story underlying them.

Maybe in the old days stars power was less of a factor, but when movies are predicated on a big opening weekend for much of their box office revenue, then the need for top actors are that much greater. Also you mentioned Gigli. Although Ben Affleck and J. Lo are celebrities, they did not have the track record as star actors.

Moreover, I am specifically talking about how Hollywood stretches creative boundaries because of star power outside of the blockbuster genre movie, through independents and atypical projects.

[Brian S.]

Greg F., when I mean cross fertilization, I am primarily referring to inter-company, not intra-company. Of course, a game developer can lend his IP to whatever project he has next, but a competitor can't get access to that company's success. In movies, if Adam Sandler makes a hit comedy for Sony, he can also make a comedy for MGM in the hopes of a hit in the same vein. Actors have free agency in Hollywood, IP does not in games, or v. rarely.

By buddy-teaming, I mean explicit character identification to help a new character. Similarly, I am asking is it possible or even doable, for an identifiable character like a Lara Croft or Max Payne, to assist in bring a new character to fruition (and possible his own title), when most people want to play the known character, not his sidekick.

[Tadhg]

What Scott says about stars not making movies is true in so far as there are no guarantees that a star's presence translates into dollars. The same is exactly true of licenses not guaranteeing profit for a game.

Stars and licenses are brands, and in both cases, the reason that they receive such prominence is because of the pre-eminent brand-driven mechanism of marketing. Branding essentially dictates that by finding the name of something that the public deems to have value, and then transfering that name to other products, the public's loyalty may follow. MAY follow. There are a million and one factors associated with the possibility of success, but the essential mechanism at work here is that the money people are hedging their bets.

If you took ten 5 million dollar films with actors that no one ever heard of and pitched them against each other on equal footing, there is no saying that 1, 2 or 10 of them would turn profit. Which one would you greenlight? Maybe none of them would make money. This is because any collaborative creative project, especially one involving a large number of people, essentially looks like shit until very late in the day.

So if you, as an executive, have NO hope of figuring out which of your projects will bear fruit, the best thing that you can try and do is hedge your bets as much as possible. So you get a star in. Or you tie your game to a license. Or you make something a sequel or a tie-in. You still don't know if it will be a success, but you do definably increase your exposure, which increases the chance that you will make some money back.

It takes real guts on the part of a money man to trust a film or game crew to produce a blinding product. Guts are something that are always in short supply, although every maverick successful producer probably did this at one point or another. This is why exectuives from normal product-driven industries are absolutely the worst people to hire to manage studios.

Entertainment industries are the riskiest industry in the world.

[Brian S.]

Tadhg, I think you are missing my point. Although the entertainment business is indeed volatile, that does not mean it is without factors of success. Brands aren't created just because of marketing hype, but because people form strong allegiances to a particular quality or aspect of actors' performances or personas. And therefore they have value. What Hollywood has been able to do that the video game industry cannot readily replicate so far is in transfering a celebrity brand to support risky projects (originality) and develop new actors. Gaming developers, in contrast, must often start anew and take outsized risks if they want to push the envelope or introduce new characters to their IP portfolio. This is why I am saying that video games too often rely on sequels and non-native-to-gaming licenses in order to sell the product.

[Brian S.]

To summarize my thoughts and clarify my points:

It is that Hollywood has been able to create and foster a system under which the untested (projects and actors alike) can be tested by partnering with a known quantity: the star actor (even if it is not perfect). Moreover, these efforts can be often done at a low cost using new techniques (see the camera work in "Traffic").

Video game developers and their publishers do not have this advantage. They often cannot test new concepts and introduce new characters by leeching off of successful brands from others. There is little transferability. Instead they must often take the risk of creating completely new designs and characters if they want to try new things out.

[Gestalt]

Brian S - "There is no parallel actor cross-fertilization concept in video games"

This isn't true, and there's certainly no reason why it shouldn't be done more often. The game characters are effectively the actors, rather than the game designers (who are more equivalent to directors, script writers, cinematographers etc). And game characters often cross over between games - think of all the Mario and Donkey Kong spin-offs, Super Smash Bros Melee, the console Duke Nukem games and side-scrolling Manhattan Project, the bonus characters from other games in Soul Calibur II, all the Capcom vs SNK vs Marvel type beat 'em ups, Starcraft Ghost, the abortive Warcraft Adventures, Kingdom Hearts...

You can also use brands in a similar way - take Warcraft / World of Warcraft, the Final Fantasy series, the Tom Clancy franchise, the Everquest RTS, Might & Magic and its many spin-offs, etc etc etc.

[Brian S.]

Gestalt, what I mean is not intra-company IP transfers (aka sequels/spinoffs) but inter-company transfers. While it is true that under certain circumstances game company's cross license each others' characters for a new title (as in Kingdom Hearts or Capcom v. SNK), it is not regularly done. Moreover, the top brands can often impose controls on what the characters do and with whom they interact with which often re-enforces their typecasting (and risk minimization). In Hollywood, an actress like Charlize Theron can go a beau dame in "The Legend of Bagger Vance" to a pyscho killer in "Monster."

[JP]

The movie industry analogy yields some useful insights but sometimes it is more trouble than it's worth.

[Scott Miller]

Brian, I stand by my point that star actors offer no measure of guarantee that their movies will be successful. People simply do not go to movies to see stars, they go to see good movies. Popular stars cannot improve the box office on bad or average movies to any noticeable degree (or even good movies). I've studied the record of over 50 top stars, and they can have two super successes in a row followed by a total flop, followed by a success, and then three flops. Harrison Ford is a prime example.

If I ran a Hollywood studio, I would never pay big bucks for a top actor. I'd hire people with good acting talent, but not big name stars. My movies would cost far less by doing this, and have a much better chance of making money. Star power is a myth, when it comes to drawing people to theater seats. People go to theaters to see good movies, not stars.

There are people in Hollywood who understand this completely, but they say that a star's attatchment to a project is the most important factor in getting a movie green-lighted, and so that's their ultimate value, and why the Hollywood star system will persist.

[Greg Findlay]

I don't think the game industry has an equivalent to an actor. A character in a game is like a character in a movie. The parallel ends there. When an actor acts in a different movie, they are playing a different character (unless it's a prequel or sequel). Also, the movie industry hordes its IP at least as much as the games industry. If MGM makes "As God as my witness" then Sony can't make "As God as my witness 2: Screw it all to Hell". If studios owned actors they would only act in that studio's movies and they would probably get type cast.

Also, game studios sell their IP to other studios all the time. Take the Unreal Engine. Or the Quake 3 engine. The majority of the games that use them will have, on the box, powered by the Unreal Engine.

I'm not trying to say that your wrong Brian. Learning how the movie industry thrives can really help the game industry. All I'm getting at is there are plenty of examples where game studios work together on projects to help each other out. Looking at ways other industries market their products is good, but finding ways to use those strategies in a practical way in the game industry is better.

[Raph Koster]

Scott, I'm surprised to hear you say that stars don't matter. Of course they matter. It's just that they matter in ways that don't necessarily translate into good lifetime take.

For example, you said, "they say that a star's attatchment to a project is the most important factor in getting a movie green-lighted." Don't denigrate that! Sexiness sells, and stars are sexy, and therefore the clout itself is a value-add for the film.

It also becomes a value-add for marketing, for first-day ticket sales, for buzz factor... stars draw attention. If the product then sucks, then the attention won't help, of course, but it helps get people in the door. Stars are similar to what you're always advocating regarding character names, game names, and so on. They're comparable to Dave Perry's list of key hype factors.

Lastly, some stars do provide a sort of branding, via their taste in scripts or their image management. This is only some stars of course, but the discerning movie-goer learns to follow the careers of certain actors because they reliably participate in projects that fit that viewer's tastes. There's a remarkable consistency to the choice of films of certain actors.

None of these things matter to the bottom line, except insofar as a film that lacks the stars but has all the ingredients of a hit is going to have a harder time of getting greenlit, getting publicity, getting word of mouth, opening strong, and therefore making money over the long haul. And we've all seen movies like that, ones we thought deserved to succeed but didn't.

Haven't you been saying that what Ico and Beyond Good and Evil really lacked is the equivalent of a star?